This website uses cookies for functionality and allow us to analyse the use of the site. To opt out please view our cookie policy .If you continue to browse the site, we'll assume you agree to the use of cookies.

Key Details

Biography

Glenn is a Partner and is the Head of the Employment teams based in Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester at Irwin Mitchell.

His client experience includes providing support to a number of large and small businesses in a variety of different fields and he is a key adviser and the relationship partner to some of the Employment and Pension Group’s key national clients. These include the likes of Capita Group’s HR Function, the Eddisons Group and a number of well-known PLC clients.

An experienced Employment Tribunal advocate, Glenn also advises on a wide range of employment law matters including the enforcement and defence of restrictive covenants, advising on senior level appointments and exits, outsourcing, acquisitions and disposals including Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment (TUPE) issues, large scale reorganisations and redundancy, discrimination and equality issues.

He is the lead partner for our Restrictive Covenant product – IM Protect – and one of the leaders in the growth of our IMhrplus product. Glenn is also responsible for ensuring that any work that is “north shored” to achieve costs savings for our clients is handled efficiently and harmoniously.

Glenn also regularly presents at seminars and training events organised by the firm, has been the judge at a number of Mock Tribunal events arranged for clients and has presented seminars for third parties and clients/contacts. He is also a member of the Employment Lawyers Association.

Recent highlights:

Defending the Lincolnshire Partnership Trust at Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal, in relation to a significant and lengthy whistleblowing and multi-discrimination case brought against them with an approximate value of £200,000.

Providing strategic advice on on-boarding for a number of clients, advising on the enforceability of restrictive covenants and strategies for avoiding issues in this regard.

Advised a large steel manufacturer on the purchase of a major site in Wales on how to structure the purchase to minimise the risk of TUPE applying.

Advised a number of high profile Chief Executives/Managing Directors on their departures from their employment, including dealing with all issues surrounding shareholding and taxation.

Advised a large South Yorkshire (Indian owned) manufacturer on the dismissal of their Managing Director and the process for doing so.

Advised a law firm on the employment implications of a geographical move of premises and the enforcement of mobility clauses in contracts of employment.

Market view:

He "gets right to the heart of the issue and deals with issues head on; he's very realistic and understands clients' businesses and how they operate." – Chambers & Partners, 2018

He is "a straight-talking no-nonsense lawyer who gets straight to the point with sound and unequivocal advice." - Chambers & Partners, 2017

The Employment teams led by Glenn Hayes attract praise for their "good value for money" - Legal 500 2016

Read My Comments On The Latest News

“Doing business today means meeting the needs of the tech-savvy customers but still retaining that trusted personal relationship - evolution rather than revolution. At Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, we are embracing technology in this way and have seen enhanced efficiencies being built across our business and a further improvement in our service delivery to clients.”

“This latest report highlights the significant impact that automation technologies will have on jobs.
“Our report found that despite one in three businesses thinking that Industry 4.0 will reduce employment in the next decade, aggregate employment levels will be stable until 2021. Similar to the Centre for Cities findings, we found that the distribution in terms of type of job and the location is set to change considerably and this could have major repercussions for a large number of businesses, particularly those in the North.”

“This is a crucial ruling and will no doubt be one that businesses will be keeping a close eye on.
“If the ECJ reaches the same decision as the Advocate General, businesses will potentially face huge financial liabilities for holiday pay if they are engaging individuals on self-employed contracts, in circumstances where they later, when this status is successfully challenged then transpire to be ‘workers’.
“Uber, for example, has a ‘self-employed’ workforce of over 40,000 in the UK. Several of their drivers have already successfully claimed that they are workers rather than self-employed. Many more drivers, and indeed other gig economy workers, might be tempted to claim worker status if it opens the doors to holiday pay claims going back to the start of their engagements.”

“Today’s decision will not just affect Uber but will have a huge impact on other gig economy models. Workers from Deliveroo have brought similar claims and both Citysprint and Addison Lee are appealing against decisions which also found that their drivers were workers rather than self employed. These have not yet been determined and this decision is likely to affect these and other claims where the self-employed models of working are challenged.
“However, I suspect we haven’t seen the end of this particular case. There is so much at stake for both sides and I think it’s inevitable that this will now move to the Supreme Court and might be heard as early as February 2018.”
“Uber have been keen to treat this case as being discrete and have tried to suggest that it has no bearing on the rest of its workforce of around 50,000 drivers in the UK. That is nonsense. This case examines Uber’s business model which applies to all of its drivers and I would expect to see many more claims being issued.
“It isn’t just about the employment rights of Uber’s workforce and the potential flood of similar claims that it could face - there may be significant tax ramifications, if, HMRC decide to challenge the status of the drivers for tax purposes. This will mean that Uber has to account for National Insurance payments. However, there are other, potentially even higher tax risks to the business. If the appeal courts decide that Uber is providing transportation, HMRC may also argue that it should be charging VAT to customers and paying it to HMRC – and this liability can be backdated by up to four years.”